Paliyekkara highway: Supreme Court slams NHAI for collecting toll before completing roads

The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) on continuing to collect toll from the public at Kerala’s Paliyekkara toll plaza despite incomplete works and severe traffic congestion [National Highway Authority of India and Anr. vs. OJ Janeesh and Ors.]

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing NHAI’s challenge to a Kerala High Court order which suspended toll collection for four weeks at the Thrissur district plaza on National Highway 544, citing poor road conditions and traffic bottlenecks.

The Court noted that the High Court had been pressing NHAI to take remedial measures since February this year, but there had been no effective response. CJI Gavai said the focus should be on addressing the hardships faced by the public rather than litigating between authorities and contractors.

Referring to the state of the road, CJI Gavai said he had personally travelled on the stretch and found its condition unsatisfactory.

“You take the toll from people, don’t provide the services,” the CJI said.

Justice Chandran added that service roads along the highway were not being maintained, which worsened congestion. When Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for NHAI, responded that maintenance was the concessionaire’s responsibility, the counsel for the concessionaire said the accident-prone “black spots” under construction were never within their contractual scope.

Explaining the concessionaire’s position, the counsel said they had been maintaining the highway as per their obligations under the agreement, and that the five identified black spots were the NHAI’s responsibility.

SG Mehta told the Court that the concessionaire had also filed a petition which would be heard on Monday, but said NHAI was concerned because the High Court’s order could allow the concessionaire to claim losses from the authority.

He argued that the disputed stretch was only 2.85 kilometres of a 65-kilometre highway, and that blind-spot intersections had emerged after construction, requiring underpasses or over bridges.

CJI Gavai was not persuaded by the explanation.

“That you should have done at the planning stage itself. Before completing the road, you start collecting the toll,” the CJI said.

Mehta replied that the intersections were not part of the original plan, but Justice Chandran noted that none of them were near the toll plaza and that the real problem was a bottleneck that even prevented ambulances from passing. He said the High Court had given NHAI four weeks to resolve the issue instead of litigating further.

According to Mehta, the highway itself was complete and functional, with congestion limited to service roads used during ongoing intersection works.

Justice Chandran maintained that congestion in those areas was far from the toll booth and that the concessionaire was only required to maintain the toll area.

The CJI reiterated that disputes between NHAI and the concessionaire should be resolved through arbitration, not at the expense of road users.

“Why should citizens be put under the yardstick?” the CJI said.

Justice Chandran also referred to reports of a man who could not reach his father-in-law’s funeral due to traffic on the service roads.

SG Mehta then requested the matter be posted for Monday, August 18 when he would come prepared with maps to show that the intersections where traffic persists are in fact, close to the toll plaza and hence under the ambit of the concessionaire's responsibility and not the NHAI's.

The Bench said it was not inclined to interfere with the High Court’s order at this stage and posted the matter for further consideration on August 18.